The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Are you saying that the SNP don't now want independence, or just that they won't try and call another referendum unless they are sure they can win?

I am not sure what Scottish people believe about Holyrood and Westminster but if they want to vote for real change in 2020 they had better get back behind Labour as the UK government, because your part of the country gave a pretty decisive vote in the referendum to keep Westminster as your seat of government.

Holyrood is essentially a glorified town council. Scotland appears to have chosen the worst of all possible worlds. It demanded a referendum but then chose the status quo, then proceeded to remove itself from the actual decision making apparatus of the status quo, reducing massively the influence it once had.

You nationalists are making a bad situation about 100 times worse for yourselves, and anyone who doesnt want Prime Minister Osborne, because all this SNP calling the shots baloney is a total scam. All you are doing is weakening the Labour Party who are our only chance of booting the Tories out.

Stop it.

the scots are behaving in their own self interest.

they would clearly prefer a tory UK government than one led by a lot of loonies that support the IRA, think killing millions in the name of socialism is, on balance a good thing, want to re-open the mines, never want a single redundancy ever again, want to replace the NHS with a EU concept, want EU level unemployment and to replace our generous maternity pay/leave with lower EU levels.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

The trouble is that the Labour Party treated Scotland in general and Glasgow in particular as their fief. That's tainted the Labour Party in Scotland for a generation I suspect and may well mean an end to Labour Governments.

No way. You are underestimating the power of Socialism.

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No way. You are underestimating the power of Socialism.

There's nothing like a reasoned argument.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

That was a bit wide of the mark, Shakey.
You and the SNP based the argument for leaving on an economic case that depended totally on the price of oil. Now that crutch has collapsed, there is a scrabbling around for a new crutch, the new magic word being diversification. In this you are fortunate to be assisted by the rest of us who want all parts of the UK to have a healthy economy.

Nope, there was far, far more to it than oil prices for many of those/us who voted Yes. Support has risen while oil prices fell.

In the meantime the SNP needs to do their day job and use the new powers arriving, rather than continuing with the broken record of whinge and excuses about levers.

The SNP has been getting on with the day job. Nicola's speech the other day outlining the next five years was very good. Did you miss it ?

You accuse islandannie of being flag wavy!!! You of all people! islandannie is no doubt rightly proud of her Scottish identity, but she has a broader, and pragmatic, view which is not restricted by the Collective SNP Cocoon. Not that I dislike the existence of the latter ... while it is the SNP Engine, it is also their Achilles heel.

I don't personally think islandannie is a real poster. Just someone with another ID more than likely who likes to stir things up from time to time.

I look forward to the economy of Scotland improving even further. Apart from that being good in itself, a contented population is less likely to ditch a good thing. But that's the tricky thing for the SNP isn't it. To use the new powers successfully is to damage their case, ... Far better (for them alone) to back peddle and whinge, blaming Westminster all the way.

Westminster will quite rightly always get blamed for unpopular policies that are set at Westminster and implemented on a UK level. End of story there.

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Are you saying that the SNP don't now want independence, or just that they won't try and call another referendum unless they are sure they can win?

The SNP have always been for independence. It's why they exist. They won't call another referendum until it looks like they will win it. Why on earth would they call one they think they will lose ? Madness. The first one was after an unexpected win at Holyrood. Salmond is much more of a gambler than Sturgeon is. She'll wait until Scots voters seem likely to vote Yes.

I am not sure what Scottish people believe about Holyrood and Westminster but if they want to vote for real change in 2020 they had better get back behind Labour as the UK government, because your part of the country gave a pretty decisive vote in the referendum to keep Westminster as your seat of government.

Holyrood is essentially a glorified town council. Scotland appears to have chosen the worst of all possible worlds. It demanded a referendum but then chose the status quo, then proceeded to remove itself from the actual decision making apparatus of the status quo, reducing massively the influence it once had.

You nationalists are making a bad situation about 100 times worse for yourselves, and anyone who doesnt want Prime Minister Osborne, because all this SNP calling the shots baloney is a total scam. All you are doing is weakening the Labour Party who are our only chance of booting the Tories out.

Stop it.

It's gone too far now to stop. The Yes campaign lost the last referendum so they'll go for a gradualist approach now unless something major upsets the applecart like a Brexit, or if this election fraud scandal catches on. England will once again react with horror at the prospect of a Labour party 'propped up' by the SNP in 2020. Either the UK Labour party deals with the SNP or it will have to split into completely separate Scotland/England parties.

There have been suggestions of both. But Corbyn needs all of his MP's behind him. At the moment it looks like they're all just waiting to pounce at an opportune time to get rid of him asap. Meanwhile....

Andrew Picken ‏@andrewpicken1 May 24 Annual Return just filed for Yes Scotland, with SNP lawyer & Blair Jenkins as only directors. Interesting that it's being kept ticking over.

That's of course if there is no general election beforehand.

Corbyn orders review to ready Labour for potential snap election

Some Labour MPs have become increasingly alarmed at the prospect of a snap general election if the Conservatives are destabilised by party divisions over the EU referendum.

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act should mean no general election until 2020; but it can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-labour-review-ready-snap-election

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Yes campaign lost the last referendum so they'll go for a gradualist approach now

But of course a gradualist approach weakens the case for indy.

The more powers Scotland gets the less the case for getting more powers.

Particularly when it becomes clearer to the masses how much we are subsidised by every year.

At the moment for every £100 Scotland contributes to the Treasury we get back close to £120..... That's quite some "pocket money".

islandannie

Oh dear,Salmonds words in stone about education fees looks like haunting him for the parochial fool that he is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/27/poor-scots-squeezed-out-of-university-by-snp-cap-on-places/

It`s a real pity that some of our brightest pupils will never achieve their full potential.

Generali

islandannie wrote: »

Oh dear,Salmonds words in stone about education fees looks like haunting him for the parochial fool that he is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/27/poor-scots-squeezed-out-of-university-by-snp-cap-on-places/

It`s a real pity that some of our brightest pupils will never achieve their full potential.

It's the problem with socialism: if you don't put a price on something you need to ration it another way.

Still I'm sure all those sons and daughters millionaires will be very glad not to have to compete for a decent job with some spotty oik from Govan who might be brighter than them but whose failing comprehensive didn't prepare them to get into uni.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nope, there was far, far more to it than oil prices for many of those/us who voted Yes. Support has risen while oil prices fell.

The SNP has been getting on with the day job. Nicola's speech the other day outlining the next five years was very good. Did you miss it ?

I don't personally think islandannie is a real poster. Just someone with another ID more than likely who likes to stir things up from time to time.

Westminster will quite rightly always get blamed for unpopular policies that are set at Westminster and implemented on a UK level. End of story there.

The usual inability to step outside the myopic SNP bubble. The true path to irrelevancy.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But of course a gradualist approach weakens the case for indy.

The more powers Scotland gets the less the case for getting more powers.

Particularly when it becomes clearer to the masses how much we are subsidised by every year.

At the moment for every £100 Scotland contributes to the Treasury we get back close to £120..... That's quite some "pocket money".

Your argument has been as completely disproven as the 'devolution will kill nationalism stone dead' one in 1997. More gradual powers have only ever lead to calls for more powers. It certainly hasn't cemented the union that's for sure !

The more Scotland starts acting independently of Westminster the better imo. Less of a leap in the dark in any future referendum. A start on separate taxes and welfare on top of law, education and the NHS already is a good step forward. For now.